User talk:Sulfur/Archive2018
:For older discussions, see the 2006 archives, the 2007 archives, the 2008 archives, the 2009 archives, the 2010 archives, the 2011 archives, the 2012 archives, or the 2013 archives. ---- Wider format Greetings, I've started to get used to the new wide format, but have two questions. Elsewhere you answered an user that it is the new "fluid" layout. What does this entail? I knew something was afoot, but it has largely passed by me, so I'm not up to speed. Secondly, and somewhat more importantly, is this definitive? While the picture layout disturbance, seems to be manageable for the most part, there are quite a few pages were there is now some pic layout havoc, as was the case in a previous skin change. Before I start addressing this when I stumble upon such a page, it is useful to know that no other changes are in the making... Regards, --Sennim (talk) 10:33, October 18, 2013 (UTC) :There will be more changes along the way -- so when working on re-laying out images on pages, do keep in mind that the layout can change based on the size of your browser. This is where the "preview" button gets way more important. Use that, then look beside the title (top left) and you'll see a "current size" button. That has drop-downs to "maximum size" and "minimum size" to enable us to better lay things out so that they work for all browsers sizes. -- sulfur (talk) 10:45, October 18, 2013 (UTC) That's an useful tip, Thanks. It also seems that on the somewhat pic heavier pages, the somewhat cumbersome "gallery" will be getting a new lease of life--Sennim (talk) 10:55, October 18, 2013 (UTC) Cid Highwind complaint Hi Sulfur, I have a bit of unpleasant business to bring up. I would like to formally complain about Cid Highwind's behaviour in the recent merge discussions. I'm actually not sure about the form for this. As far as I understand, there's not really an official procedure for it, am I right? I'll just try to explain the situation, and hope it is clear. First though, I realize that you're not entirely uninvolved, since you posted in one of the discussions a few times. But with Cid, 31dot and Archduk3 pretty heavily involved, I've had some trouble locating an admin that both isn't involved, and that is active enough that I know I can count on to even see this within a reasonable amount of time. I hope since you've only commented on the problem of the discussion proliferating over several pages (which wasn't directly initiated by Cid), you can still be considered neutral enough. Of course it's not ideal, and if you feel you can't handle this complaint because of that (or for any other reason), that's ok of course. (though if you do that, an alternative suggestion would really be helpful). Anyway, I don't know to what extent you've seen this, so I'll explain the situation as I see it. The gist of it is that I feel Cid Highwind has been acting unfairly in the discussion, by (in short) dismissing every contra-merge proposal for not being absolutely perfect, while at the same time nearly completely ignoring any criticism brought up about his own viewpoints. He essentially placed himself in a position where he could dismiss every argument he didn't like, thus dooming any discussion, and that (due to his insistence that merges should be looked at on a case by case basis) he can start over without inconvenient history elsewhere. There were arguably also a number of other instances of disruptive or otherwise unhelpful behavior. After repeatedly pointing out this behavior and most only being criticized for criticizing him instead of presenting even better ideas, I find it hard to believe that the behavior was not intentional. As I've said I've pointed out the behavior in the discussion itself (which admittedly may not have been the most productive thing either, by the way), so I think it is easiest to just give you the discussion to read through. Be warned though, the discussion got kind of ugly at times. In fact, I'm not entirely without blame for that either, we were all getting pretty frustrated at times and some of us showed that more then others. Things started here in what was supposed to be a pretty narrow discussion. Admittedly I was largely responsible for widening it in that case. At some point a bunch of articles were also unilaterally brought up for deletion, but no significant discussion went on on those pages because most agreed the discussion ought to stay on one page. Despite that, near the end of the discussion a second page sprung up, Forum:Articles about less than prominent buildings, which was supposed to address one particular set of articles again but quickly morphed into a more general discussion (and was subsequently renamed to reflect that). Frustration with progress on that page resulted in pages being brought up for merge, which lead to significant simultaneous discussion on this talk page. I've urged to keep the discussion on one page, but after Forum:Merge policy/guideline discussion died out a few days ago a wider discussion erupted again on that talk page. I've ended up venting my frustration in a pretty angry rant at Cid, and I'm afraid to say there's some more of that continued on Cid's talk page. That is basically where we are now. Wow, that was surprisingly much to type out, I hope it is clear. If you have any questions you can of course ask for clarification. Apart from the obvious stuff, I'd also like to point you to this particular comment on the merge policy/guideline discussion which I didn't call out at the time, but which I found particularly disturbing because I thought it was in blatant disregard of our rules (the last sentence): :You know what, forget this discussion. I will just oppose and refuse changing my mind while someone else runs amok and suggests articles for deletion with "no reason" as the deletion rationale. There have been ten new suggestions after my last comment here alone. This either stops and gets sorted out by someone, or I will just happily play along and delete these suggested articles after the minimum time allowed by policy. --Cid Highwind (talk) 08:04, October 10, 2013 (UTC) It's also worth pointing out that Archduk3 also criticized Cid a few times early on, though I haven't been in contact with him so I'm not sure if he'd agree with this. Throwback also voiced some concern with Cid on my own talk page yesterday. His concern there about Wikipedia policies may be of the mark, but on the whole I think that while his actions may not always have helped the discussion, his concerns are fair. As someone who creates a lot of articles on the kind of subjects the validity of which was being discussed, I think once the discussion is over he ought to be able to know what kinds of articles he can create before actually creating them. So, I guess I'd like to know your opinion on all that. Sorry for putting you in this position, and for possibly ruining your Sunday. -- Capricorn (talk) 05:36, October 20, 2013 (UTC) Splitting and moving Mark Miller article Dear Sulfur, The article Mark Miller needs to be split into "Mark Miller (ILM)" (which is Mark S. Miller) and a new Mark Miller and which is Mark Fred Miller of Digital Magic and EdenFX. I've always suspected that there were two of them as I found it unbelievable that one and the same Miller would work concurrently for ILM and operate his VFX companies, and I've finally found confirmation here Only the third paragraph is applicable to Mark F. As manager Mark F. doesn't seem to have his own IMDB page. I'm not sure how to go about this, so hence my request...Sorry for the extra work and thanks in advance..--Sennim (talk) 15:31, October 24, 2013 (UTC) :Can we split them into "Mark S. Miller" and "Mark Miller" (or "Mark F. Miller"?) perhaps, and have each disambiguate to the other? -- sulfur (talk) 15:38, October 24, 2013 (UTC) I like the very first "Mark S. Miller" and "Mark Miller" split, "Mark Miller" is the one that is most referenced to, as far as I can see "Mark S", is only referenced in the credits of Trek IV..--Sennim (talk) 15:51, October 24, 2013 (UTC) :Done. Although, I think that I'd prefer to have "Mark Miller" as a disambiguation page so that it's easier to ensure that links are going to the right place. Every link that should be to the ILM guy goes to "Mark S. Miller" now, and every link for the Eden FX guy goes to "Mark F. Miller" (which currently redirects to "Mark Miller). Turns out that we had two "Mark S. Miller" entries already... -- sulfur (talk) 16:00, October 24, 2013 (UTC) Great, Thanks Sulfur, I'll take it from here and will somewhat "beef out" the Mark F. article..--Sennim (talk) 16:06, October 24, 2013 (UTC)